Why Libertarians Are Basically Cult Members

Simply note libertarianism's fatal flaw and you'll get an enraged, hysterical response. They still don't get it

My previous Salon essay, in which I asked why there are not any libertarian countries, if libertarianism is a sound political philosophy, has infuriated members of the tiny but noisy libertarian sect, as criticisms of cults by outsiders usually do. The weak logic and bad scholarship that suffuse libertarian responses to my article tend to reinforce me in my view that, if they were not paid so well to churn out anti-government propaganda by plutocrats like the Koch brothers and various self-interested corporations, libertarians would play no greater role in public debate than do the followers of Lyndon LaRouche or L. Ron Hubbard.

An unscientific survey of the blogosphere turns up a number of libertarians claiming in response to my essay that, because libertarianism is anti-statist, to ask for an example of a real-world libertarian state shows a failure to understand libertarianism. But if the libertarian ideal is a stateless society, then libertarianism is merely a different name for utopian anarchism and deserves to be similarly ignored.

Another response to my essay has been to claim that a libertarian country really did exist once in the real world, in the form of the United States between Reconstruction and the New Deal. Robert Tracinski writes that I am astonishingly ignorant of history for failing to note that the libertarian utopia, or the closest weve come to it, is America itself, up to about 100 years ago. It was a country with no income tax and no central bank.(It was on the gold standard, for crying out loud. You cant get more libertarian than that.) It had few economic regulations and was still in the Lochner era, when such regulations were routinely struck down by the Supreme Court. There was no federal welfare state, no Social Security, no Medicare.

Simply note libertarianism's fatal flaw and you'll get an enraged, hysterical response. They still don't get itMy previous Salon essay, in which I asked why there are not any libertarian countries, if libertarianism is a sound political philosophy, has infuriated members of the tiny but noisy libertarian sect, as criticisms of cults by outsiders usually do. The weak logic and bad scholarship that suffuse libertarian responses to my article tend to reinforce me in my view that, if they were not paid so well to churn out anti-government propaganda by plutocrats like the Koch brothers and various self-interested corporations, libertarians would play no greater role in public debate than do the followers of Lyndon LaRouche or L. Ron Hubbard.An unscientific survey of the blogosphere turns up a number of libertarians claiming in response to my essay that, because libertarianism is anti-statist, to ask for an example of a real-world libertarian state shows a failure to understand libertarianism. But if the libertarian ideal is a stateless society, then libertarianism is merely a different name for utopian anarchism and deserves to be similarly ignored.Another response to my essay has been to claim that a libertarian country really did exist once in the real world, in the form of the United States between Reconstruction and the New Deal. Robert Tracinski writes that I am astonishingly ignorant of history for failing to note that the libertarian utopia, or the closest weve come to it, is America itself, up to about 100 years ago. It was a country with no income tax and no central bank.(It was on the gold standard, for crying out loud. You cant get more libertarian than that.) It had few economic regulations and was still in the Lochner era, when such regulations were routinely struck down by the Supreme Court. There was no federal welfare state, no Social Security, no Medicare.

Libertarian means stay the f ck out of my business. Take your govt head phones off of my phone and keep your dammm dirty eyes of my emails. Raise your own kids and I'll raise mine. Stay the fkkk out of my house.

Retard cut and pasting without providing source again?Lol figures.Have you tried reading the acutal words written fromm the scrambled brain of slew?Good luck comprehending mass of incomprehensible text she puts up.Its why the retard cuts and pastes others words and pretends its her owns by not providing links.Democrat party is dieing.Status quo lemmings are losing credibility on both sides.

Who is this Sexual Sociopath Bushwhacker (Slewblomkin), that brings Deviant and Criminal Sexual Fantasies he has into every Thread he contaminates with is presence?

Who is this hard Fighting DOJO Master, Slewblomkin?

Our Slewblomkin is a lonely little Pasty Gray Fellow, Un Married, probably a Homosexual that Hates himself, sitting in the Basement of his Home with 2-3 computer screens in front of him.

One Screen has the "Day Traders Ticker" on it, one screen is dedicated to one of the Low Cost Stock Trading Sites on the Web, the last screen has Topix, where he comes on and abuses strangers from his Darkened World in his Basement.

He is a Degenerate Gambler doing Day Trading like a Junkie!

He loses more that he wins, and that is when he really goes off on strangers here who have lives that remind him of his miserable existence in the Basement.

He HATES!, and he tosses out an occasional Leftist Political Perspective, but he is here for the HATE, and he could just as easily toss out Right Wing Perspectives to draw attention to himself.

He needs the stimulation.

Negative or Positive is not important to him. He is a Junkie that just needs Stimulation, and Topix is a readily available source of stimulation for him

I am not being mean when I call him a Sociopath. He has his own little prison in front of those screens, feeding his "Habit".

Thus IMMR, and his other posts about "MONEY". As a dedicated Collectivist, he would not brag about his "MONEY". He is no more a Leftist than a Rightist. He is an Addict.

IMMR is his way of connecting to someone, ANYONE.

He hit the Jackpot on the Slot Machine with IMMR, and he needs to brag about it, but there is nobody in his darkened Basement to Brag too. Topix Victims take the place of living humans, who he cannot interact with because he is feeding his habit all day.

If he made money on paper with IMMR, he will gamble it away, as all Day Traders do.....Then "WE" will really PAY for his pain.

This is one sick Addict that does not leave his basement except for food which he eats at his Screens. I bet he defecates in a Bucket, and keeps Pajama's on all day so that it is easy to slip um down at toilet/bucket time.

The Sociopath may well receive compensation from Topix for posts. He is sitting in front of the screens 16/7, why not make a buck or two off Web Providers.....Topix is probably not the only site that he gets paid for.

You will note that Slewblomkin does his Psycho Rabid Fast Posts at certain times of the day.

Always before 8:00 AM, after 9:30 AM until 10:30 AM, or after 4:00 Pm when the Market is closed and his Ticker is not Current.

This cycle is repeated EVERY day and it is tied to his Addiction as a Degenerate Gambler doing Day Trading in his Jammies, down in the Basement.

A dry drunk is a person whose brain was affected by years of alcohol abuse, despite the fact that the person had quit alcohol. Usually is a result of a person who went cold turkey. The brain usually shrinks

Simply note libertarianism's fatal flaw and you'll get an enraged, hysterical response. They still don't get itMy previous Salon essay, in which I asked why there are not any libertarian countries, if libertarianism is a sound political philosophy, has infuriated members of the tiny but noisy libertarian sect, as criticisms of cults by outsiders usually do. The weak logic and bad scholarship that suffuse libertarian responses to my article tend to reinforce me in my view that, if they were not paid so well to churn out anti-government propaganda by plutocrats like the Koch brothers and various self-interested corporations, libertarians would play no greater role in public debate than do the followers of Lyndon LaRouche or L. Ron Hubbard.An unscientific survey of the blogosphere turns up a number of libertarians claiming in response to my essay that, because libertarianism is anti-statist, to ask for an example of a real-world libertarian state shows a failure to understand libertarianism. But if the libertarian ideal is a stateless society, then libertarianism is merely a different name for utopian anarchism and deserves to be similarly ignored.Another response to my essay has been to claim that a libertarian country really did exist once in the real world, in the form of the United States between Reconstruction and the New Deal. Robert Tracinski writes that I am astonishingly ignorant of history for failing to note that the libertarian utopia, or the closest weve come to it, is America itself, up to about 100 years ago. It was a country with no income tax and no central bank.(It was on the gold standard, for crying out loud. You cant get more libertarian than that.) It had few economic regulations and was still in the Lochner era, when such regulations were routinely struck down by the Supreme Court. There was no federal welfare state, no Social Security, no Medicare.

Implying that libertarianism doesn't work because it hasn't been used is like saying "if wild life does better in the wild why do people put them in zoo's". It makes no sense and is a borderline retarded statement. I expect this level of intelligence by a salon reader. Stefan molyneax already destroyed this clownish article on youtube.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.